A nuclear powered destroyer fleet can be anywhere in less than 5 days and have just as much ordinance as a carrier group.

With sufficient engine power it can be done.

LOL. With suffiecent engine power you are going to propel a carrier sized super missle destroyer indefinately at 60 to 100 knots?

That is a hell of a powerplant. I remember my naval engineering classes at the Naval Academy and I can think up many ways why this would not work.

First of all, please tell me what sort of hull is going to withstand the forces generated by pushing a 95,000 ton object at 75 knots.

More power does not enter it. At a certain speed propellers cavitate (low pressure creates bubbles and water is no longer driventhrough the screw) and
they cannot go any faster no matter how much power you have behind them.

Jet- propelled fusion reactor engine. Don't underestimate technology and its riches. A well engineered, hardened and thick frame can easily handle
the pressure.

"Jet propelled fusion nuclear reactor." You don't know how nuclear energy is used for propulsion do you? This is not the cartoon "Battleship
Yamato", this is real world.

Secondly, please share with us this new hull materiel that can withstand such forces at such speeds yet does not weigh so much that any speed benefit
is lost or has to be so thick that you can't put your huge batteries of missles in them? Lockeed Martin has a job for you at a very impressive
salary if you can make a 95,000 ton warship travel indefinately at 100+ knots.

I'd never for the US military industry. No chance. Hell it's what I would be fighting against.
But with enough funding and resources you can make it happen. All that I said. Whether it's better to do a big one than several small ones is another
dispute.

So the only think keeping you from becoming a billionaire with your knowlege of fusion reactor jet engines and hull composites is your hatred of the
US military? I know a thing or two about physics, how does this nuclear fusion jet engien work? Knowing that F=MA, what is thrust out the back of said
engine to create momentum forward?

On modern small ships (destroyers and cruisers) we now use Jet Engines. Only not in the way you might think. They are engines that burn fuel
and turn......wait for it.......shafts that turn screws!

None of our ships are "jet propelled" as in sucking in water and shooting it out, nor like on a plane where it sucks in air and uses thrust to move
the ship.

Sorry. Now in movies, cartoons, comic books, sure.

But not in reality.

That does not make sense one bit and I don't have to be a career navy man or naval architect/engineer to figure it out either. A jet engine does
exactly what it infers to do. It sucks water in and expels it thus providing thrust.

On a nuclear powered AC it is used to create steam and turn the screw sure. It is also used to convert sea water into drinking and utility water.
This stuff is covered on discovery channel so its no real secret. I am suprised some people don't know this and claim we are wrong.

How does it suck water in and expel it back? Blades. You get the same problem with fluid dynamics and a limit at the force you can provide backwards
and an upper limit to the force of water you can get going back. Bernouli limits the forward force you can generate by impelling water backwards and
you get the same limits you get with screws. Imagien the force you would need to push a 95k ton vessel forward at 100+ knots and you seen that you are
limited, not by the amount of power in the plant, but the amount of water you can move.

Assuming that a country even has satellites.
or a constellation of them.

Russia and china probably do.

I would still posit that they can't cover 100% of the ground.
However I would like to hear from a trained satellite operator on the effectiveness of this.

The sky would have to be literaly innundated with military satellites to have instantanous feeds and I think we all know that is not the case. There
are many blind areas while satellites traverse the globe. I have no idea how big the intervals are either.

Nothing is going to stop a rain of missiles upon a flattop, nothing. Missiles of all manner will be the main weapon, both those from the ground,
standoff a/c and space.
But fighters for what when the other guy is shooting missiles?.

Have you seen the advancements we are making in Laser/particle weaponry???? That is the new frontier. Missiles are so 20th Century. Star Wars is
becoming a reality. At least if you have the near infinite military budget the U.S. has.

I don't doubt in the very near future we will have a veritable Laser Shield available to protect ships from incoming missiles. They are already being
deployed to the field. Oh and yes they can be mounted on aircraft too.

Till proven otherwise, the Carrier Strike Group is still a threat that has to be dealt with. You ignore a CSG off your shores at your own risk.

Personally I'd be more scared of sub surface threats than anything surface or in the air.

I'm not even sure why most of us are continuing the debate, when you prove more and more ignorance on this particular subject with every post.
Satellites are not omniscient or exactly where you need them to be at a moment's notice, which is EXACTLY why we spend billions on air recon and
sensors. While you are waiting for the next satellite to be in position for your updates, your fantasy battleships are being sunk by harpoon missiles
and bombs from aircraft you didn't detect.

Unless of course these fantasy ships of yours are engaging their reflex cannons, launching mechs, or
deploying Power Rangers, they are pretty much going down.

Originally posted by Jepic Tell me a field where the carrier is still relevant and I will tell you a platform that can do the job at least
twice as well.

Hrmmmm let me think.

Function as a floating launch platform for 85-90 aircraft of different types.
While at the same time carrying all the necessary equipment, armament, repair facilities and fuel to supply the fleet of aircraft?

Please reply to this prior post of mine.

Other than for civilianand commercial use, winged aircraft are obsolete.
You can integrate repair facilites into destroyers too.

Again, you're not reading:

Fighter aircraft can launch missiles faster than ships.

Fighter aircraft can have missiles reloaded onboard a carrier.

Ships need to pull into port to have new missiles loaded.

Case closed.

1. Doesn't matter much at what slightly higher speed something is coming to you when it is being met head on by two missiles.
2. Which is a downside because while it is there it is a sitting duck.
3. That is a downside, but the missile loading function can be integrated into the destroyers. Besides when one is in port you can be sure there will
be another destroyer out there that replaces it.

You do realize of course, that unless you have some kind of naval or military background, your debate of some of these members, is like a first aid
student trying to argue techniques with a surgeon, right? I mean, this was these guys' jobs for years. I'll defer to them as well, as they know
their stuff more than I in this regard.

My knowledge is more from growing up as a military and defense contractor brat, with an intense interest in the field most of my family has been in.
These guys' knowledge is from first hand experience with the equipment and concepts you are trying to debate here.

As NavyDoc mentioned:

No. This is where you fail. You can't see the carrier before he sees you because he has air assets and you don't. This is not a movie, LOL.

If you know where someone is, and they don't know where you are, and you can hit them without being detected...the battle is over, and you have
won.

From Jepic:

Destroyers don't need heavy guns. Heavy guns on battleships are a thing of the past. Missile is where it's all at as I said in this thread
already.

Missiles can be countered more easily than ordnance from big guns. Big guns still have their place.

edit on 24-4-2013 by Gazrok because: (no
reason given)

Yes... In the Internet everyone can be Montgomery.

Planes are primitive in recon field compared to satellites.

edit on 24/4/13 by Jepic because: (no reason given)

Incorrect. Again , this is not television. Satellites do have a value to be sure, but are limited in real time targeting data. Not every part of the
world has a satellite over it to get the data you need. To move a satellite to a new orbit to evaluate a new situation takes planning and a lot of
importance to that action because satelites have only a limited amount of manuvering fuel aboard. Unless your enemy is stupid enough to engage you in
the footprint of a prepositioned targeting satellite, your satelites will be useless for this battle and you still lose the over the horizon edge.

Satellites can travel in constellations. That means you have a satellite for each region of the earth depending on how many regions you want to split
it up with. The more the better of course.
Just in case. It means worldwide coverage up to the last inch. Integrate the surveillance allocation capability into the network of all destroyer
fleets and your planes are lucky if they reach the second milestone so to speak.

Not enough satellites to cover every inch of hte world simultaniously at this point. "Consellations?" Please point out these "constillations.

Does not matter if you see the plane. He can see you and there are no SAMs with the range of our cruise missles.

If this was true why is every major nation building war planes?
Even China is building a stealth fighter.

Germanicus is that you?

I will admit I was one to argue such nonsense about a decade ago on some game forumn and looking back boy was I stupid. I was arguing against fighter
planes and in favor of SAM systems.

Fact of the matter is SAMs are defensive assets and fighter aircraft are primarily offensive assets. When you go bombing a country you need fighter
escorts and the defender(like syria or libya) uses SAMs as last effort "hail mary" defense.

You don't grasp it... Your carrier group has no chance against the number of missiles a destroyer fleet has. NO CHANCE. Too many to counter and too
fast too counter them all.

And you are still refusing to acknowledge what was explained to you (not sure if your trolling your own thread, or if you REALLY are this thick
headed).

Your missiles are absolutely usless.

You can't use them, unless you get your fleet within 20 miles of the Carrier group, and THAT is NOT going happen.

Your fleet will be wiped out by a carrier group long before that because the carrier group will be able to see your fleet and attack it before your
fleet can locate and engage the carrier group.

All because your fleet lacks over the horizon detection that is real time data.

Satellite tracking data is NOT going to help you in this case. It's not real time, and it can not do the things that the carrier group can, like EM
detection and warfare.

You have lost this debate several times over. By failing to admit that (especially when you are speaking from ignorance and lack of experience like
many of us here have), you are doing yourself a disservice.

Move on.

edit on 24-4-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)

WOOOW! You seriously just said that satellites don't track in real time!? And that they don't have electronic warfare capabilites!? ARE YOU
SERIOUS!

No, what I said is that there is not enough to have 100% coverage of everything all the time. If you rely only on satellite imagery, you lose. If you
rely only on ELINT, you lose. The CBG can go complete electronic silence, passively receiving the target data from the eyes in the sky, whereas your
"Super destroyer" has to emit both to target and to protect itself form incoming missles. Your hypothetical super destroyer could not stay
electronically silent to shoot and defend. The CBG can. Even if you get a SAM launch against the Hawkeye, your position is already plotted and the
birds are inbound. The satellite won't see the missles go off, even if you are lucky enough to have one with the CBG in it's footprint, because
cruise missles use prepragramed coordinates and don't go active until the very final phase. You, on the other hand, have to keep radiating if you
have any hope of picking a few off with your CIWIS.

And you forget: if you put a missle with a thousand mile range on an aircraft with a thousand mile range, you have an effective weapon delivery range
of 2 thousand miles. The aircraft can launch multiple sorties of multiple missles each long before you get in range of the CBG with the missles on
your boat. Again, that is one of the many advantages of the carrier: power projection.

Galileo won't be fully realized (all 30 satellites) until 2019. Also, navigation is WAY different than tracking multiple targets, stealth targets,
etc. Not to mention, getting the data is one thing, having the computing power and programs to then make sense of the data and give you a combat
picture is quite another. Then of course, there is the compromise the EU made to the US regarding jamming frequency, and the fact that the EU and US
are not exactly on fighting terms.

Originally posted by Jepic Tell me a field where the carrier is still relevant and I will tell you a platform that can do the job at least
twice as well.

Hrmmmm let me think.

Function as a floating launch platform for 85-90 aircraft of different types.
While at the same time carrying all the necessary equipment, armament, repair facilities and fuel to supply the fleet of aircraft?

Please reply to this prior post of mine.

Other than for civilianand commercial use, winged aircraft are obsolete.
You can integrate repair facilites into destroyers too.

Again, you're not reading:

Fighter aircraft can launch missiles faster than ships.

Fighter aircraft can have missiles reloaded onboard a carrier.

Ships need to pull into port to have new missiles loaded.

Case closed.

1. Doesn't matter much at what slightly higher speed something is coming to you when it is being met head on by two missiles.
2. Which is a downside because while it is there it is a sitting duck.
3. That is a downside, but the missile loading function can be integrated into the destroyers. Besides when one is in port you can be sure there will
be another destroyer out there that replaces it.

1) Does mater because the air craft can carry their missile payloads much closer to an enemy fleet. Much shorter flight time for the missiles = much
slower reaction time by the people on the ship.

2) You don't have all of your jets sitting on the ship, they rotate, once again your ignorance of US Naval Flight Ops is appalling.

3) Ah, but the carrier can have it's munitions flown out to it.......no returning to port needed.....and I can tell you, from personal experience,
that loading missiles on a destroy is an all day event that takes a very long time to get done, because of all the safety precautions that we
follow.

Plus the time to pull into port.....set the Sea and Anchor detail, get tied up, have the munitions brought out (what? You thought they have them
sitting on the pier? MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA. No. They are in bunkers until it's time to load: safety reasons).

Then preparing to get underway again, setting the Sea and Anchor detail, and getting out to see.

Some weapons stations are located well up river......like Goose Creek, SC.......or near Williamsburg, VA. Not sitting right there at a naval
station.

Keep in mind that Carriers actually travel in a Carrier Strike Group consisting of 6 - 7 ships each with a different purpose. Guided Missile
Cruisers, Anti Aircraft Ships and anti submarine destroyers and/or frigates and you've got one hell of a group that is perfectly as capable of
defending itself as it is in launching Sortie after Sortie against an enemy target. Taking out a carrier and its escorts is not as easy as you seem
to think.

The carrier strike group is far from obsolete given our current involvement in in all parts of the world. Take away that involvement and protection
for our allies that these groups provide and you might be able to argue your point that they are obsolete in foreign seas. They will always have a
place in the protection of the United States and our territories.

How will each of those SPECIALISED ships fare against a fleet of which each 7 ships have anti-air, anti-submarine, guided missile and finally regular
destroyer capability combined? In other words each destroyer has all the capabilites of those platforms combined except aircraft, which as I said is
inferior to a missile.

This is a troll trying to articulate that we don't have the most powerful navy in the world just because of our carriers. He is stating that we will
be easily destroy with missiles because they don't move fast....even though they are heavily armored and designed for those type of strikes.

The point of carriers is to spread our air force and dominate the air.

MISSILES ARE EXPENSIVE!!! Why do you think our military is looking into laser technology to shoot down missile? Spend 500k on an interceptor or uses a
energy generated laser?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.